Seriously, however, that was a very interesting post to read. My first thoughts revolved around the current state of the world compared to your post. But I digress.

You propose that Bahnsen undermined his own argument by faulty logic, correct? By saying that there can be no order without God, he presupposed his own argumet? This might be a bit above me, but I'll do my best to attempt to answer anyways:

You say that there does not need to be God to prove the laws of reason and logic, and that it can, in fact, be proven by human beliefs (or societal ideals, if I'm correct) and reason.

Again, you also say that a human creation (logic, in this case) cannot be separated from humanity without losing its meaning. After all, what is the point of a book if there are no people to read it (that example might not be the best, but, on first glance, it appears to work)? Therefore, if attempt to apply the principles of reason and logic to God, we arrive at an impossible-to-solve conundrum, due to the fact that these two ideas are incompatible.